Talk:Ebionites

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ebionites article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Dispute Resolution

I've created the following two articles and mentioned them in the See also section of the Ebionites article:

I suggest people who have a vested interest in these articles surviving a speedy deletion attempt or a full article for deletion debate not only watch over them but also improve and expand them. --Loremaster 14:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest that people move any debate about these two religious groups to their respective talk pages.

The Talk:Ebionites talk page is only for discussing changes to the Ebionites article. --Loremaster 14:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Towards Featured Article status

Before we push the article to Peer review - a step that should always be taken before the Featured Articles Candidacy step - , we need to 1) preserve a neutral point of view ; and 2) extensively provided references for every paragraph in this article following Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines. --Loremaster 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

Lead section: John the Baptizer, Geography

I have changed the first sentence of the article to delete the reference to John the Baptist and the geographical information. There are a number of changes to this article which I would suggest, but I thought I'd start out with this one and see how it flies with the others (especially Loremaster). My reason for deleting the reference to John the Baptist is that this is to complicated to explain in one paragraph. It is like saying that Muslims and Christians are followers of John the Baptist; it's true, but that's not their main guy. Geographical location of the Ebionites is also a complex problem. Locating them in Iudea is almost certainly correct but the only specific references of which I am aware (in Epiphanius) are just outside of this province (Galilee, the Decapolis, Perea, Nabatea, etc.). I'd discuss geography separately below. The first sentence as revised is sufficiently broad so that there will be a consensus and it does not require a reference (I think!). Keith Akers 15:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support all your changes. Good work! --Loremaster 17:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the deletion of either the leading John the Baptist reference, or of the geographical reference. This is skewing the article away from the historical sources. John is mentioned as much as Jesus by Epiphanius in connections with the Ebionites. Is there any evidence that John has an inferior role to Jesus'? (They are both presented as vegetarians, for example. John's Aaronic descent is mentioned.) Placing them in space as well as time is important enough to mention in the lead. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think John should only be mentioned in the History section. However, a general mention of geography in the lead would be good. Specific geography is best discussed in the History section. The lead should be expanded to mention when the sect began to disappear into historical obscurity. --Loremaster 18:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't justified the removal of John the Baptist. He figures prominently in the Gospel of the Ebionites. The fixation on Jesus in the article is unbalanced and indicative of subsequent non-Ebionite trends not reflected in early Ebionite sources. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although John may figure prominently in the Gospel of the Ebionites, it doesn't change the fact that the ancient Ebionites became “fixated“ on Jesus. As long as John's importance is fully discussed in the History section, he doesn't have to be mentioned in the lead. So feel free to create such a paragraph. --Loremaster 20:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that the Ebionites became fixated on Jesus over John? The Gospel of the Ebionites is unclear as to the primacy of the two -- if indeed that is a meaningful issue since, as the Ebionite Gospel hints, John was the Aaronic priestly messiah and Jesus the Davidic king messiah. It is the later Christian sources that fixated on the Ebionites' relationship to Jesus. I think all we can say with certainty is that the Ebionites followed both John the Baptist and Jesus, as evidenced by the comparable "air time" both receive in the Gospel of the Ebionites. To say otherwise is to uncritically accept the later mainstream Christian sources and POV. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem we have here is one of "scope" -- what do we talk about in such an article. I know that Wikipedia has a criterion of "no original research," although this is hard to apply sometimes. E. g. is reading Epiphanius "doing original research" etc. etc.

My comment on John the Baptist is that all we know about the Ebionite gospel comes through the church fathers anyway. Therefore their selections from the gospel reflect as much Epiphanius' POV as their other statements and should not have "special status" within Epiphanius. The quotation itself mentions John the Baptist, but do not comment on his status vis-a-vis Jesus. In fact the impression I get from Epiphanius is that Epiphanius just started here because it was the first "mistake" he found in their gospel, and his extensive discussion of "Jesus" and "Christ" reflects his own conversations with them as well as his reading of their writings. This is also confirmed by a cursory reading of the Recognitions and Homilies. The historical relationship of the Ebionites to John the Baptist (comparison with Elkasaites, Mandaeans, etc.) is interesting but too complicated to put in an introductory sentence.

It is not to complicated to say they were the followers of Jesus and John the Baptist, as it originally said. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've restored the mention of John in the lead. --Loremaster 13:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. And I will, as you suggest, write up something for the rest of the article about John although (as you know) there's not much that can be said for certain. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on Judea is that, while I personally am fairly confident that they were there in the beginning, there is no direct evidence of this that I know of. It is only by argument and inference. Epiphanius gives a long list of geographical locations for Ebionites, Nazoraeans, Nasaraeans, Ossaeans, and "Elkasaites"; the only place he does NOT mention is Judea. He places them just outside of Judea, just north, east, and south. Does someone have any better information on this? My argument at least would be by inference: we know the church was in Judea (Jerusalem) in the beginning, the Ebionites must have evolved from that point, Justin Martyr places Jewish Christians in Judea during the Bar Kochba revolt, and the "Jewish Christians" were probably "Ebionite" at this point. While I would argue for an early origin of the term "Ebionite" (maybe late first century?) the earliest reference is Ireneaus in the late second century. By then, there may not have been any Ebionites in Judea, having fled basically back to their place of origin in Galilee, Syria, the other side of the Jordan, etc., which is where Epiphanius finds them. To argue for "Judea" you have to argue for an early origin of the term Ebionite and then explain their absence from Judea later by the various wars against Rome. So this is a complicated problem and I wouldn't put it in the very first sentence. Perhaps if there is a term that refers indefinitely to Judea (the Roman province), Galilee, the Decapolis, Perea, Nabatea, that general region, we could use it? Keith Akers 12:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine? --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Loremaster 13:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the flagrant POV in using the anachronistic name Palestine for the Province of Judea for dates before Bar Kokba. The historical record shows that the name of the place was officially the Province of Judaea, but after the Bar Kokba revolt the Romans, in their Roman way, assumed that if they abolished the names of Judah and Jerusalem, the Jews would disappear. However, Providence had other ideas that triumphed, and now it is the pagan Roman Empire that is gone. If you include a mention of "Palestine" please clarify for accuracy sake that the place only officially had this name after the year ~~140~~ (sorry, 135), and before that it was Judaea. Set the record straight. Thank you/ ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased the Lead to accomodate all opinions shared above. --Loremaster 17:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judea? Wouldn't Iudaea Province or Kingdom of Judea be clearer to include the north? --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Iudaea Province was my original choice so I've restored it. --Loremaster 18:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had two original objections: complexity and accuracy. This interchange has dealt with the complexity but restored the inaccuracy. (1) I do not think that, historically, the Ebionites held James, Jesus, and John the Baptist in equal regard. Jesus is clearly the main figure. I think this would be the consensus of scholars, in fact I doubt that many scholars would even see this as an issue. (2) It is completely inaccurate to say they flourished between 30 and 80 CE. Epiphanius describes them in the fourth century, around 380 CE. Schoeps and others thinks the term "Ebionite" became used only after 70 CE and I agree. (3) How about they flourished in the "Levant"? I think it is quite misleading to imply that they were based in Iudaea Province of the Roman Empire (look at the map for this region in the Wiki article about it), and only peripherally elsewhere. Originally the Jesus movement was in Galilee, Gaulanitis, and the Decapolis, where Epiphanius finds the Ebionites in the 4th century. So as "Ebionites" they might have been briefly in Iudaea, but it was pretty much always a "missionary" operation, in my humble opinion, when the arrows started flying they left for good. As I said originally, this is a complicated question. You can either put in a complicated sentence to express basically a complicated situation, or you can postpone discussion until later with a general statement. Keith Akers 12:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I agree. The importance and roles of John the Baptizer and James the Just should only be discussed in the History section.

2. I agree. I was actually refering to the Nazarene movement, which preceded the Ebionite movement, began and was most active.

3. I disagree. I think the expression "Galilee, Iudaea Province and surrounding regions" is the most accurate compromise.

--Loremaster 13:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! Thanks. Keith Akers 14:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Levant - I like that: it's a bit vague and (it seems) so should we be. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Levant is too vague since it's pratically never used by any scholar when discussing the Ebionites. --Loremaster 15:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Palestine during the Roman and Byzantine periods" It don't think this would be an inappropriate anachronism when phrased this way. --Loremaster 15:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any use of "Palestine" is unacceptable, inaccurate, and anachronistic if you are talking about the province that was renamed in 135 AD. It is also POV because you are playing into the POV of the ROman Emperors who could not stand the real name of the place and had to come up with an insulting name. It is POV like calling Jerusalem "Aeolia Capitolina". It was only officially Palestine from 135 AD, please do not call the region before 135 AD Palestine. Before it was renamed Palestine in 135 AD the province was Iudaea Province. In 135 AD it was renamed Palaestina Province. This article deals with events before 135 AD, when it was still Iudaea Province. I insist that Anti-Semitic Anachronisms not be used in this article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Although I could argue this, I won't. Judea it is. --Loremaster 19:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling "Palestine" a Roman anti-semitic term is ridiculous. As the entry says: "During the Persian Period, the Greek form was first used in the 5th century BCE by Herodotus who wrote of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinêi" (whence Latin: Palaestina, whence English: Palestine). The boundaries of the area he referred to were not explicitly stated, but Josephus used the name only for the smaller coastal area, Philistia. Ptolemy also used the term. In Latin, Pliny mentions a region of Syria that was "formerly called Palaestina" among the areas of the Eastern Mediterranean." --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply the Greco-Latin version of "Philistia", an actual known entity. The Romans deliberately chose this name to identify the entire region in 135 because they wanted to insult the Jews. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've know this fact for years but it doesn't change the reality that many historians still use the word "Palestine" to refer to this region regardless of time period. --Loremaster 20:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources older than 1948 do, because before 1948, it was Palestine, and they were just using the current name at the time. If we used the current name today, we would put "Israel". There is no longer any reason to use the name the region bore from 135 to 1948, to describe it outside of those dates. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complex and sensitive subject that I prefer avoid getting into. If we all approve of the current phrasing, this dispute is resolved. --Loremaster 21:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Levant is more neutral. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's try it and see how it goes. --Loremaster 12:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with that. I would support "Levant," "Palestine," or "Palestine-Syria." Hans-Joachim Schoeps, a German Jew who fled the Nazis for Sweden and wrote extensively on Jewish Christianity, says on p. 10 of "Jewish Christianity": "We have a clear profile only of the Jewish Christians of Palestine-Syria." I don't think that Hans-Joachim Schoeps is an anti-Semite. I thought he used the expression Levant somewhere and am plowing through "Jewish Christianity" to look at all the geographical references. Keith Akers 12:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only check into this about once, or sometimes twice a day, so my lack of response is not due to lack of interest. Keith Akers 12:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History section: John the Baptizer

How do we consicely describe the Ebionite view of the John the Baptizer in a short paragraph that we would insert somewhere in the History section of the article? --Loremaster 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First we have to address Keith's comment:

I do not think that, historically, the Ebionites held James, Jesus, and John the Baptist in equal regard. Jesus is clearly the main figure. I think this would be the consensus of scholars, in fact I doubt that many scholars would even see this as an issue.

Here are some quotes I trawled that describe the Ebionites as followers of John the Baptist (and James the Just) in addition to Jesus:

In addition to the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots, there were two groups of Christian Jews in late second temple Palestine, the Nazarenes and Ebionites, who were followers of John the Baptist and Jesus, and were led by Jesus' brother James. [1]

The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of the mostly Jewish/Israelite, followers of John the Baptizer, and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions, and led by “James the Just,” oldest brother of Jesus, flourishing between the years 30-80 CE [2]

The Gospel of the Ebionites was probably named for the group of Jewish followers of John the Baptist and later Jesus that flourished in the middle to late first century.[3]

The Ebionites were decendants of John the Baptist. [4]

I'm sure I could find more. As I said, is to much to ask that this be reflected in the lead paragraph? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all these passages have the same source: John Tabor's essay: Nazarenes and Ebionites. So the question is how trustworthy is Tabor's scholarship on this subject? Regardless, no one is disputung that the Ebionites began as followers of John. However, there is no doubt that Jesus became their main figure of reverence. --Loremaster 14:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, all we can be sure of is that were lead, in order, by John the Baptist, Jesus, James, Simeeon & Judas. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the Evidence of the Ebionites? --Loremaster 15:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look at that next. I was just reading Tabor[5] were he says of Josephus' on John the Baptizer that "two points are clear: (1) the reason given for John's execution and (2) the entire absence of any mention of a greater successor." which I think is pertinent. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But even Tabor suggest that the Ebionites saw Jesus as a greater successor. From Nazarenes and Ebionites: "Jesus as the Prophet like Moses, or True Teacher (but not to be confused with YHVH God of Israel), who will anoint his Messiahs on his right and left hand when he is revealed in power following his rejection and death. These two figures, the Davidic Nasi (Prince of the Yachad) and Priest, will rule with him in the Kingdom of God." --Loremaster 16:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet he starts off by saying "The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of mostly Jewish/Israelite followers of John the Baptizer and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions and led by "James the Just" (the oldest brother of Jesus), and flourished between the years 30-80 C.E. " I suggest we lead off in a similar fashion. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the primacy of Jesus should be reflected in the first paragraph of the Lead. We can mention John the Baptizer and James the Just in a second paragraph. --Loremaster 19:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not John is mentioned in the Lead section, we still need to discuss him in the History section. What do you all propose? --Loremaster 21:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O. K., I'll at least say why this is harder than it seems. There is some inference about the role of John the Baptist for the Ebionites, but not a lot of direct evidence. There is just this one passage from their gospel, quoted by Epiphanius, that says that John the Baptist was a vegetarian. The discussion in the Recognitions actually suggests hostility to the followers of John the Baptist, making Simon Magus (the arch-enemy of the Ebionites in the Recognitions/Homilies) a follower of John. The Ebionites did have a heavy emphasis on baptism, even daily baptism according to Epiphanius. So there is an argument here, but no direct evidence. Further, I am not sure exactly even how to summarize the scholarly views on this subject, off the bat. We'd have to read Schoeps, Eisenman, Tabor and gather their thoughts; and when we do this, perhaps this is another topic for the section "views on the origins of the Ebionites." Bottom line: people talk about John the Baptist in connection with the Ebionites, but there's not as much direct evidence that we can cite in an encylopedia article, nor clear "schools of thought" on the subject of which I am aware. Keith Akers 12:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History Section: Interpretations of the Law

Ebionites believed that all followers of Jesus, whether they be Hebrew or Gentile, must respectively adhere to Mosaic law and Noahide Laws through either more reconstructionist (Essene) or progressive (Pharisee) interpretation and observance, tempered with the wisdom teachings of Jesus.

I'm not sure who added this one-sentence paragraph, but the entire thing is original research and POV except for adherence to Mosaic Law. There is not a shred of evidence to support a so-called reconstructionist (Essene) or progressive (Pharisee) interpretation. This reads like a commercial endorsement for someone's modern movement. Noahide Laws are Rabbinic, not based in the Tanakh, so this too is speculation. Bring your sources without lifting quotes from a Neo-Ebionite / New Age website. Ovadyah 20:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I wrote a version of this paragraph a long time ago after reading, along with another source, John Tabor's essay: Nazarenes and Ebionites:

In that sense you might call the Jesus movement a further developed messianic "Essenism," modified through the powerful, prophetic influence of Jesus as Teacher.

They were zealous for the Torah and continued to walk in all the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher, but accepted non-Jews into their fellowship on the basis of some version of the Noachide Laws (Acts 15 and 21).

Disdain for eating meat and even the Temple slaughter of animals, preferring the ideals of the pre-Flood diet and what they took to be the original ideal of worship (see Gen 9:1-5; Jer 7:21-22; Isa 11:9; 66:1-4). A general interest in seeking the Path reflected in the pre-Sinai revelation, especially the time from Enoch to Noah. For example, divorce was shunned, even though technically it was later allowed by Moses.

Dedication to following the whole Torah, as applicable to Israel and to Gentiles, but through the "easy yoke" halacha of their Teacher Jesus, which emphasized the Spirit of the Biblical Prophets in a restoration of the "True Faith," the Ancient Paths (Jeremiah 6:16), from which, by and large, they believed the establishment Jewish groups of 2nd Temple times had lost.

That being said, I agree with your changes which I've tweaked. --Loremaster 23:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are often referring to the writings of James Tabor, I have invited him to participate in the editing process. I think it would be useful to hear his current thinking on some of these controversial topics. Ovadyah 00:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although Tabor seems to be in the minority of scholars who still argues that there was a connection between the Essenes and the Nazarenes/Ebionites, convincing him to contribute to improving this article would be great! --Loremaster 01:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are precious few scholars from the U. S. who are interested in the Ebionites and know anything about them. There are three other academic types in the U. S. that I know of: Robert Van Voorst, F. Stanley Jones, and Robert Eiseman. About a year ago an article on the Ebionites appeared in "The Fourth R" by Sakari Häkkinen. He was fairly well informed but it was clear from the article that he had not even heard of the Recognitions and Homilies -- and moreover he wasn't American. So if Tabor can round up just one or two scholars to support his point of view, his "minority" could be a "majority." I think that we should be aware of just how thin the scholarly research is in this area. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is having problems with this topic. Even scholars have problems with this topic! Keith Akers 12:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The passage saying "Ebionites believed that all Hebrews and Gentiles must rely on the Tanakh as scripture, and reject the Oral Law" is at best an interpretation. It contradicts what is directly quoted from Epiphanius elsewhere ("they blaspheme the legislation," I believe). I think that Maccoby takes this line, but I know of no other scholars, except possibly Häkkinen (his views aren't entirely clear to me). Keith Akers 12:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does the following passage mean exactly?

Quoting Epiphanius: The Ebionites "do not accept Moses' Pentateuch in its entirety; certain sayings they reject... stating Christ has revealed this to me, and will blespheme most of the legislation"

Does it refer to Jesus expounding of the Law or something more radical verging on apostacy from the Law? --Loremaster 03:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your suspicion is correct: it is more radical. It means that the Ebionites rejected the Tanakh. "Blaspheme" is misspelled and I've corrected it. The reference to "expounding the law" (which I deleted) is one possible interpretation, and we need make it explicit that this is in fact an interpretation. It depends on what you mean by the "law." If you mean the Tanakh, then the straightforward interpretation is that they rejected the law. If you mean something else -- like the revelation given to Moses on Sinai, separate from the possibly distorted text in the Tanakh -- then they were loyal to the law. (This is fact my personal POV regarding the Ebionite position.) The Ebionites thought that the original law had been falsified, and thus that the Tanakh was not the true Mosaic law. This is made explicit in Homilies 2. See chapter 6 of "The Lost Religion of Jesus" where I discuss "false texts." The Ebionites (my POV, but pretty closely supported), were actually the opposite of the Karaites: they rejected the written law, and accepted the oral law -- although probably not the Mishnah and Talmud, but some other oral law, "their" oral law. Another interpretation would be that Epiphanius just got it wrong. I don't have my copy of Maccoby in front of me, but that may be his line. I am not sure to what extent scholars actually are aware of this issue and have taken reasoned stands on it, and to what extent they just haven't read Epiphanius or the Homilies. Keith Akers 12:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History section: Panarion quotes

There are too many quotes from the Panarion. We need to replace them with original text and cite it as source. --Loremaster 01:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't that many quotes and, considering that the Panarion is the sole surviving quote source for the Gospel of the Ebionites, I don't consider it inappropriate. (Anyway, I can't find an online source.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In effect the Panarion is the original text. This, and the Recognitions and Homilies, is as close to the Ebionites as we can get. (Well, there are snatches from other writers but it is a lot less than from Epiphanius.) This fact should be brought out in the section on sources (in fact it pretty much is in the existing text). Also, there is no online source because Epiphanius was only translated into English fairly recently (I think Panarion 30 was in a dissertation in the 1970's). So the copyrights haven't expired like they have with the Ante-Nicene Fathers which was published in the late 19th century. Also, my pet peeve here, the Frank Williams translation (the only complete version) is being sold hardcover at about $200 U. S. per copy. I can only speculate on motives, but probably they think only libraries will want it and had a very limited run. You pretty much have to actually go to a library -- such a rarity! Keith Akers 11:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the article

It seems to me that article needs a new structure where we have sections or subsections that focus on history, beliefs, practices, etc. Let's all work on this. --Loremaster 14:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone involved in the artical holds that they were Torah Observant but how they understud it has been is were we have differed.

I think the main artical is not the place to try to pin down beliefs and practices without renewing the conflict.

Maybe stating something along the lines that they were fully justified by the law as Yeshua was but the nature of how they understud it and applied it in thier lives is debatable would been staying to a NPOV path.

On the respective subpages the actucaly beliefs and practices of each group would then be none POV if done in a matter of fact way of just reporting and not desiding truth as long as they can be backed up with sources. Stating some claim they were somewhat Essene in thier view of the law and some think they heald literalist views or however it is you discribe it seems none biased.

I can see taking down the quotes I added to the main artical. While I do not agree with the point of view many people here hold I see it conflicts with the ME group. If a group gets deleted then changes might once again be needed to the main artical to ballance it out.

There have been scholars that have also worked on the scrolls and wrote works stating that the John's writings can no longer be thought as the most Hellenistic in the bible and its thought originated right there in the scrolls. The most abundant fragments among the scrolls were from the Books of Enoch. With that in mind I do not believe much can be stated on the main page other then the beliefs and practices are debatedNazireneMystic 15:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Lead and History section of this article as they stand now are mediocre. I think a revised article can and should better reflect the debate among scholars about the history, beliefs and practices of the Ebionites. --Loremaster 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a section on "Sources" which would precede the section on "History." Also, depending on how it goes, you could rename "History" to be "History and Views." Keith Akers 15:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the historic accounts were from "Scholars" of thier time if we make the artical reflect the debate among scholars about the historic account then we are picking one point of view over any others and desiding truth in stead of just reporting so this can get very complex. If you only hold to living scholars then that would drasticly change the artical.I bet we could find scholars that even claim the Ebionite were actualy Musilum and then we would have to make it a Islamic site. I can see stating past prospectives and current ones and how they differ.NazireneMystic 16:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)205.188.116.198 16:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was for me was not necessarily pinning down once for all the beliefs and pratices of the Ebionites but creating sections or sub-sections for these topics. As it stands now, everything is confused together. --Loremaster 16:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Sources" would be a good start. It gets a bit harder after this! But "History and Views" (as suggested) or "Interpretations" might follow. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) The Lead section should be doubled or tripled in size. After all, for Wikipedia 1.0 leads are supposed to be a complete summaries. Ask yourself: if somebody just reads the lead, do they get a good summary of the ENTIRE article now? 2) There are a lot of short (2-4 lines, 1-2 sentences) paragraphs throughout the article. They should be merged into fewer larger paragraphs - it looks 'better'. --Loremaster 21:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: a longer lead section is advisable. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Loremaster's idea is that as the article gets longer, everyone will see their own POV represented as "Views on the Ebionites" -- Eisenman's theory, Tabor's theory, Maccoby's theory, etc. etc. -- and that the lead portion can summarize the consensus view, with details going into the controversies about John the Baptist or whatever. This is interesting and not what I would have thought of. Loremaster, is this what you're thinking? If so, would you advocate focusing on the lead first, or on the details first -- letting the lead emerge from the details? So should we think about the lead, or the details? Keith Akers 12:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]